An Eastern perspective on oesophageal perforation: a high incidence of ingested bones

Time trends and endoscopic management of foreign body ingestion in the upper GI tract: a retrospective analysis of 1,152 cases in China

OBJECTIVES

foreign body ingestions are encountered in the clinical practice and sometimes require endoscopic management. However, time trends and epidemiology of these cases have not been fully clarified. Whether seasons and festivals have an effect on the occurrence has been poorly described.

METHOD

from 2009 to 2020, 1,152 consecutive foreign body ingestion cases were enrolled in our endoscopic center. Case records were reviewed for demographic data, foreign body type and location, outpatient or hospitalization, adverse events and dates. Annual time trends and seasonal variation were analyzed as well as the influence of Chinese legal festivals on the incidence. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the potential delay for clinical consultation of these cases was preliminarily explored. Clinical features of these cases were demonstrated.

RESULTS

the overall success rate was 99.7 % and the adverse events rate was 2.4 %. There was an uptrend in the annual frequency of food foreign body ingestion endoscopic extraction from 0.65 in 2009 to 8.86 in 2020 per 1,000 esophagogastroduodenoscopy patients (r = 0.902, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the frequency of endoscopic extraction significantly increased in winter (p < 0.001) and during Chinese New Year celebratory season (p = 0.003). The duration of hospitalization may be longer in the pandemic period (p = 0.0049).

CONCLUSION

considering the uptrend of the annual frequency of food related foreign body endoscopic extraction, the publicity about the danger of foreign body ingestion should be enhanced. Arrangement of endoscopic physicians and assistants during the high-incidence season should be emphasized.

Food bolus and oesophageal foreign body: a summary of the evidence and proposed management process

PURPOSE

Food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies are a common presentation that may be managed by otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, acute medicine physicians and accident and emergency. The condition is highly variable with presentations ranging from well patients whose obstruction spontaneously passes to peri-arrest with severe aspiration or impending airway compromise. Management of this condition is heterogeneous and often depends on the specialty the patient is originally admitted under. There exist European and American guidelines from the perspective of gastroenterology, but there are no UK-based guidelines and limited consideration of the role of the otolaryngologists and rigid oesophagoscopy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was carried out to generate conclusions on key management questions for food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies. This was then summarised into both a written summary of the evidence and a graphical decision tree.

RESULTS

This paper is a review article and presents conclusions regarding management options for food bolus and oesophageal foreign bodies.

CONCLUSION

This article considers the current evidence surrounding investigation and management of oesophageal food bolus and foreign body. It draws conclusions regarding presentation, investigation and subsequent operative treatment. As part of this process, we propose a graphical decision tree to assist in management decisions.

Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 index and Cochrane Q test.

Results

Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p = 1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p = 0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p = 0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p = 0.44), respectively. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.

Outcome after accidental food bolus-induced esophageal perforation

OBJECTIVES

Food bolus-induced esophageal perforation is much more seldom than iatrogenic and emetic esophageal rupture. We present results from a non-operative treatment approach as well as long-term functional outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of 10 consecutive patients with food bolus-induced esophageal perforation from October 2007 to May 2015 were retrospectively registered in a database. Six patients developed perforation related to endoscopic removal of impacted food, and four during esophageal passage of bone, meat or bread. Treatment was sealing the perforation by stenting (n = 7) with (n = 4) or without (n = 3) chest tube drainage, chest tube drainage (n = 1), observation (n = 1) and gastroesophageal resection (n = 1) because of concomitant emesis of gastric effluent. After median 51 months nine patients reported about dysphagia, fatigue and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Ten patients aged median 62.5 years (range 30-85) stayed in our hospital for 12 days (5-68 days). There was no treatment-related mortality. Nine patients were alive 63 months (18-126) after perforation. Five needed restenting (leakage, migration, impacted stent), two had drainage of a mediastinal abscess, one patient developed a transient esophagobronchial fistula. Dysphagia score was 0 (0-1). One patient developed dysphagia for some solid food. Scores for fatigue and HRQoL was similar to a Norwegian reference population.

CONCLUSION

Treatment mainly with a non-operative approach occurred without mortality. Complications were handled by restenting and abscess drainage. Functional result for dysphagia was excellent. Interesting results on fatigue and HRQoL must be interpreted with caution because of a limited patient material.

Outcomes following the main treatment options in patients with a leaking esophagus: a systematic literature review

Leakage from the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction can be lethal due to uncontrolled contamination of the mediastinum. The most predominant risk factors for the subsequent clinical outcome are the patients' delay as well as the delay of diagnosis. Two major therapeutic concepts have been advocated: either prompt closure of the leakage by insertion of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or more traditionally, surgical exploration. The objective of this review is to carefully scrutinize the recent literature and assess the outcomes of these two therapeutic alternatives in the management of iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture as separated from those with anastomotic leak. A systematic web-based search using PubMed and the Cochrane Library was performed, reviewing literature published between January 2005 and December 2015. Eligible studies included all studies that presented data on the outcome of SEMS or surgical exploration in case of esophageal leak (including >3 patients). Only patients older than 15 years of age by the time of admission were included. Articles in other languages but English were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as a need for change in therapeutic strategy due to uncontrolled sepsis and mediastinitis, which usually meant rescue esophagectomy with end esophagostomy, death occurring as a consequence of the leakage or development of an esophagorespiratory fistula and/or other serious life threatening complications. Accordingly, the corresponding success rate is composed of cases where none of the failures above occurred. Regarding SEMS treatment, 201 articles were found, of which 48 were deemed relevant and of these, 17 articles were further analyzed. As for surgical management, 785 articles were retrieved, of which 82 were considered relevant, and 17 were included in the final analysis. It was not possible to specifically extract detailed clinical outcomes in sufficient numbers, when we tried to separately analyze the data in relation to the cause of the leakage: i.e. iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture and anastomotic leak. As for SEMS treatment, originally 154 reports focused on iatrogenic perforation, 116 focused on spontaneous ruptures, and only four described the outcome following trauma and foreign body management. Only five studies used a prospective protocol to assess treatment efficacy. Regarding a leaking anastomosis, 80 reports contained information about the outcome after treatment of esophagogastrostomies and 35 reported the clinical course after an esophagojejunostomy. An overall success rate of 88% was reported among the 371 SEMS-treated patients, where adequate data were available, with a reported in hospital mortality amounting to 7.5%. Regarding the surgical exploration strategy, the vast majority of patients had an attempt to repair the defect by direct or enforced suturing. This surgical approach also included procedures such as patching with pleura or with a diaphragmatic flap. The overall reported success rate was 83% (305/368) and the in-hospital mortality was 17% (61/368). The current literature suggests that a SEMS-based therapy can be successfully applied as an alternative therapeutic strategy in esophageal perforation rupture.

A prospective study of epidemiological risk factors for ingestion of fish bones in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Ingestion of fish bones is a common clinical complaint among adult patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiological and behavioural risk factors for fish bone ingestion.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2010, a physician-administered questionnaire was administered to 112 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department of an adult tertiary hospital with the complaint of fish bone ingestion.

RESULTS

The wearing of dentures, the use of utensils to eat fish and the practice of deboning fish in one's mouth were found to be associated with an increased risk of fish bone ingestion.

CONCLUSION

To prevent the occurrence of fish bone ingestion and its possible complications, at-risk populations should be advised on the precautions to take when eating boned fish.

Perforation of esophagus and subsequent mediastinitis following mussel shell ingestion

Esophageal perforation is a very rare occurrence because accidental swallowing of foreign bodies is uncommon in adults. Thus, perforation due to swallowing of a foreign body and subsequent development of mediastinitis is rarely encountered by physicians. We experienced such a case and described an adult male patient who had perforated esophagus after accidentally swallowing a mussel shell. The patient visited our emergency department complaining of painful dysphagia for 4 days. A review of history revealed that he consumed a spicy seafood noodle soup containing mussel shells 4 days ago. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest showed the foreign body in the esophagus and pneumomediastinum was identified. We removed the mussel shell fragment using rigid esophagoscopy; explo-thoracotomy, debridement of mediastinal abscess and irrigation were performed.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.

Current treatment and outcome of esophageal perforations in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of 75 studies

BACKGROUND

The current prognosis of esophageal perforation and the efficacy of available treatment methods are not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of esophageal perforations published from January 2000 to April 2012 and subjected a proportion of the retrieved data to a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality immediately after esophageal perforation.

RESULTS

Analysis of 75 studies resulted in a pooled mortality of 11.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.7-14.3: 75 studies with 2,971 patients] with a mean hospital stay of 32.9 days (95 % CI 16.9-48.9: 28 studies with 1,233 patients). Cervical perforations had a pooled mortality of 5.9 %, thoracic perforations 10.9 %, and intraabdominal perforations 13.2 %. Mortality after esophageal perforation secondary to foreign bodies was 2.1 %, iatrogenic perforation 13.2 %, and spontaneous perforation 14.8 %. Treatment started within 24 h after the event resulted in a mortality rate of 7.4 % compared with 20.3 % in patients treated later (risk ratio 2.279, 95 % CI 1.632-3.182). Primary repair was associated with a pooled mortality of 9.5 %, esophagectomy 13.8 %, T-tube or any other tube repair 20.0 %, and stent-grafting 7.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of recent studies indicate that mortality after esophageal perforation is high despite any definitive surgical or conservative strategy. Stent-grafting is associated with somewhat lower mortality rates, but studies may be biased by patient selection and limited experience.

Successful surgical treatment of a spontaneous rupture of the esophagus diagnosed two days after onset

Esophageal perforation is a relatively uncommon disease with a high rate of mortality and morbidity. Delay in the diagnosis and treatment occurs in more than 50% of cases, leading to a mortality rate of 40–60%. Primary repair is generally considered the gold standard for patients who present within the first 24 h following perforation of the esophagus. In this paper, we present a case of successful surgical treatment of spontaneous rupture of the esophagus that was diagnosed 2 days after onset. The patient was a 42-year-old man admitted to internal medicine with a diagnosis of pleuritis and complaining of chest and back pain. The next day, computed tomography revealed left-sided pleural effusion and mediastinal emphysema. An esophagogram revealed extravasation of the contrast medium from the lower left esophagus to the mediastinal cavity. These results confirmed a rupture of the esophagus, and an emergency left thoracotomy was performed. The perforation was repaired with a single-layered closure and was covered with elevated great omentum obtained by laparotomy. The patient was discharged 23 days after the first surgery. In conclusion, primary repair surgery must be selected as the best treatment beyond 24 h if the patient's general state was stable and there was no evidence of clinical sepsis.

Treatment of cervical esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies

In this article, we reviewed our experience of treatment of cervical esophageal perforation caused by foreign bodies. Between 1980 and 2010, 42 patients were included in this study. There were 18 women and 24 men with a median age of 54 years. We divided the patients into three groups: the patients whose foreign bodies could not be extracted by otolaryngologists using endoscope (n= 7), the patients who had some signs of abscess formation but the foreign bodies had been extracted using endoscope (n= 25), and the patients who had no signs of abscess formation and the foreign bodies had been extracted (n= 10). We treated the patients of the three groups with surgical treatment, drainage alone, and conservative treatment, respectively. The outcome of the current series was favorable. Our experience suggested that most of the cases can be treated conservatively or by drainage alone. If the foreign bodies of the esophagus could not be extracted using endoscope, surgical treatment including the removal of the foreign bodies, primary repair, and drainage should be performed.

Aggressive surgical treatment in late-diagnosed esophageal perforation: a report of 11 cases

Introduction. Esophageal perforation is a relatively uncommon and lethal disease usually resulting from endoscopic procedures. Delay in the diagnosis and treatment occurs in more than 50% of cases, leading to a mortality rate of 40% to 60%, but this rate decreases is 10%–25% if treatment is carried out within 24 hours of perforation. Case Presentation. To analyze the characteristics, etiology, site of perforation, presentation, time interval till diagnosis, treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal perforation. Over a five-year period, from October 2004 through March 2009, 11 patients with esophageal perforation were referred to the division of thoracic surgery of a tertiary referral hospital. In eight patients, perforations were thoracic with delayed diagnosis for at least 48 hours. Two patients had cervical esophageal perforation, and one patient had early-diagnosed Boerhaave's syndrome. Eight patients are alive after followup for a period ranging from eight months to five years. In the remaining three patients, cancer was the underlying disease and the reason of death. Conclusion. No patient with esophageal perforation should be deprived from surgical repair due to delayed diagnosis. All, except preterminal patients, should undergo exploration after resuscitation, and appropriate treatment should be carried out depending on the findings during operation. Aggressive treatment is necessary in the case of established mediastinitis.